In the field of game cards, lottery tickets, and other similar games of chance, it is well known that the security of the prize winning indicia is always of paramount concern to the game manufacturer and sponsor. This concern derives from the desire to maintain the integrity of the particular game and the notion of equity and fairness in gamesmanship.
The level of this concern has been heightened recently by the evolution of methods by which individuals may surreptitiously gain insight into the prize winning indicia of a particular game card or lottery ticket and deceive the vendor as to the individual's right to claim a particular prize. The more commonly known methods of illicit prize detection include heating adhesive seals and later resealing them; chilling the adhesive with a refrigerant to make it brittle and later regluing the seal; and, illuminating the game card using infra red, optic fibers, lasers, x-ray or powerful conventional light sources to reveal their contents.
Numerous tamper detection devices have been produced in response to these evolving methods of fraud. The majority of these devices focus on the use of tapes, labels or other methods designed to evidence tampering including color contrasting, disintegration and resistance to resealing.
Typical of the art are those tamper detection devices disclosed in the following U.S. Patents:
______________________________________ U.S. Pat. No. Inventor(s) Issue Date ______________________________________ 3,854,581 E. C. Jones, Jr. Dec 17, 1974 4,120,445 Carrier, et al. Oct 17, 1978 4,121,003 F. P. Williams Oct 17, 1978 4,174,857 J. R. Koza Nov 20, 1979 4,371,196 W. von Kempski, et al. Feb 01, 1983 4,454,956 R. A. Patterson Jun 19, 1984 4,709,396 D. K. Voshall, et al. Nov 24, 1987 4,721,638 T. Matsuguchi, et al. Jan 26, 1988 4,738,472 T. Shibata Apr 19, 1988 4,980,222 R. R. Rivera, et al. Dec 25, 1990 5,013,088 T. C. Marin May 07, 1991 5,082,702 T. D. Alband Jan 21, 1992 5,153,042 K. W. Indrelie Oct 06, 1992 5,193,854 J. C. Borowski, et al. Mar 16, 1993 5,358,281 W. G. Greig Oct 25, 1994 ______________________________________
The '581 patent issued to Jones; the '956 patent issued to Patterson; the '222 patent issued to Rivera, et al.; and, the '702 patent issued to Alband disclose tape devices. The '581 patent issued to Jones discloses a pressure-sensitive tape which evidences tampering by wrinkling or tearing when removal is attempted. The '956 patent to Patterson discloses a pre-folded polymeric tape which seals metal beverage containers and evidences tampering by unfolding when access is sought by pulling or tearing the extended tab. The '638 patent to Matsuguchi, et al., discloses a laminate adhesive material and a method for the manufacture of adhesive material which prevents resticking for use with such items as package security stickers and price tags. The '222 patent to Rivera, et al., discloses a closure tape comprising a phase separated polymer film and color indicia which reflects tampering when the phases of the film polymer and the color indicia are disrupted by attempted removal of the tape. The '702 patent to Alband discloses a similar tape having a light transmissive film which evidences tampering by revealing patterns of printed characters when the film is disrupted.
In each instance, these tape devices predicate their effectiveness in detection of tampering upon the attempted or actual removal of the tape device. For example, the '581 tape requires removal for wrinkling; the '638 tape requires removal to display its single use properties; and, the '222 and '702 tapes require removal for separation of their respective components. They make no provision for detecting tampering by other means, such as by penetration or incision and resealing. Moreover, each of these tapes assumes that the compromise of the tape will occur in a manner which is parallel to the tape; that is, that the tape will be peeled off or lifted. They do not address, provide for, or guard against, an invasion of the sealed object where removal of the tape is not attempted but where the invasion of the object occurs in a direction perpendicular to the tape. Nor do these devices address methods for exposing such invasions. For example, the meticulous penetration or cutting by a surgical instrument will not disrupt, delaminate or deface the '003 label. Nor will such an invasion activate or otherwise trigger the light transmissive properties of the film of the '702 patent to Alband. Consequently, the tape devices disclosed in these patents are inadequate to detect and reveal the fraud practiced by individuals using surgical or related instruments to discretely and meticulously cut into game cards, expose prize winning indicia, restore the card to what appears to be an unused or unaltered condition to an untrained or unobservant eye, and return the game card to claim another ticket or a game winning prize. Tape devices are equally ineffective as a method for detecting tampering in game cards or other related games of chance as an incision in a tape on a game card is just as effectively concealed as an incision in the perforations of the game card itself. Further, tape devices are limited in their application and unrelated to latex silk-screening or printing as methods for tampering detection.
The '003 patent issued to Williams; the '472 patent issued to Shibata; the '088 patent issued to Marin; the '042 patent issued to Inderlie; and, the '281 patent issued to Greig disclose label devices. The '003 patent issued to Williams discloses a label which delaminates and is defaced if transferred from one object to another. The '472 patent to Shibata discloses a thermo-sensitive single use label. The '088 patent to Marin discloses a masking or block label containing a plurality of cuts on the label which disintegrates upon attempted removal. The '042 patent issued to Indrelie discloses a multi-layered adhesive label which also disintegrates upon separation and provides literal warnings of tampering. The '281 patent issued to Greig discloses a label in which the label face separates from the adhesive coat disposed on the rear of the label to reveal evidence of tampering.
The deficiencies of the label devices for tampering detection are identical to those of the tape devices as label devices also predicate their effectiveness on the attempted or actual removal of the device and the expectation that compromise will occur in a direction parallel to the plane of the label.
Consequently, these devices also fail to provide for detection of tampering by any other means. Each of these labels fails to detect tampering where that tampering is a cutting or a relatively perpendicular penetration rather than a removal of the security device. Use of surgical or related instruments are equally as effective in illicitly defeating these label devices as they are with tape devices. As examples, a meticulous surgical cut will not disrupt, delaminate or deface the '003 label. Neither will a similar surgical cut activate or otherwise trigger the reactivity of a thermosensitive label such as that of the '472 patent. Nor will such a cut be reflected in the separable label of the '821 patent, especially if regluing accomplished.
Thus, the label devices disclosed in these patents are equally ineffective to reveal fraud practiced by individuals who discretely and meticulously cut into game cards to reveal essential prize information and restore the card to what appears to be an unused condition to an untrained or unobservant eye. As with tape devices, label devices are equally ineffective indicators of incision-type tampering on the game card or other related games of chance as an incision in a label on a game card is just as effectively concealed as an incision in the perforations of the game card itself. Further, labelling is also distinguishable from the present invention as it is unrelated to latex silk-screening or printing as methods for tampering detection.
The '445 patent issued to Carrier, et al.; the '857 patent issued to Koza; the '196 patent issued to von Kempski; the '396 patent issued to Voshall, et al.; and, the '854 patent issued to Borowski, et al., disclose several unrelated additional methods of tampering detection.
The '445 patent issued to Carrier, et al., discloses a multi-strata pouch which reveals evidence of surreptitious compromise by undergoing an irreversible color change when exposed to chemical or heat agents. The multi-strata pouch of the '445 patent is inapplicable to problems encountered in the game card or lottery ticket industry. It does not protect against tampering by any other means, such as by surgical or related instruments. Nor does it assist in detecting attempts to compromise the security of the pouch using such instruments. Moreover, the security pouch is unrelated to methods of tampering detection using latex silk-screened or printed indicia of the present invention.
The '857 patent to Koza discloses a rub-off game ticket which utilizes postage stamp-type perforations and metallic foil as a method to prevent unwanted disclosure of information and to detect tampering. The game ticket of the '857 patent is fundamentally inapplicable to the subject invention as it relates to rub-off or scratch coat-style game tickets and protection of the entire ticket but not to protection of the critical areas which disclose game winning indicia. The game ticket of the '857 patent fails to prevent tampering by disposing any indicia or media to evidence tampering to the perforations or the perforated area. More specifically, the '857 game ticket fails to rebuff the skilled and equipped unscrupulous person as such a person defeat the postage style perforations by making minute surgical style cuts into the perforations and gently elevate, without bending, the foil to spy the indicia printed on the ticket and re-seal it. Further, the '857 game ticket patent is limited in application to games where the prize value and the cost-benefits of tampering are minimal.
The '196 patent issued to von Kempski discloses a security filament typically inserted into financial documents and forms of identification. The object of the security filament is to detect forgery and not guard against tampering. The filament of the '196 patent does not solve the problem of tampering with game cards by use of surgical or related instruments, and subsequent regluing. The security filament provides no method or manner of detecting whether a game card has been tampered with and, consequently, fails to prevent or otherwise inhibit this activity. A further disadvantage of the security filament of the '196 patent is that the filament and the equipment to attach the filament to documents must be available to persons making the game cards, resulting in added inconvenience and expense.
The '396 patent to Voshall, et al., discloses an envelope having a pressure sensitive seal that reveals a hidden message when the seal is broken. Like the '445 patent to Carrier, et al., the envelope of the '396 patent is distinguishable from the present invention as it describes a container rather than a game or lottery type card. The pressure sealed envelope of the '396 patent is also inapplicable to game card or lottery ticket situations as the sealing system of the '396 patent is created with the expectation that an individual will attempt to gain access to the envelope by pulling at its border or opening. It makes no provision for protection for tampering by other means including use of surgical or related instruments. The envelope can easily be surreptitiously compromised by cutting across the cohesive layers of the seal without disturbing it or revealing evidence of tampering.
Finally, the '854 patent to Borowski, et al., discloses an article employing a thermo-chromic layer as a means of authenticating a document quickly and on-site; in a manner conceptually similar to the security filament of the '196 patent issued to von Kempski. As with the '196 security filament, this method of authentication bears no relation to the methods of tampering detection of the subject invention.
Therefore, it is an object of this invention to provide a means to prevent tampering with break-open game cards, lottery tickets and related games of chance. Another object of the present invention is to provide the average vendor with a means for quick and accurate detection of surreptitious tampering with such game cards. Still another object of the present invention is to provide for an easily applicable and inexpensive method of tampering detection. A further object of this invention is to protect against unwarranted inspection of break-open game cards, lottery tickets and related games of chance using microsurgical techniques. Yet another object of the present invention is to provide a game card which is secure from surreptitious tampering but easily accessible to and legible by its intended reader.